Literature DB >> 25592748

Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Mikihiro Fujiya1, Kazuyuki Tanaka1, Tatsuya Dokoshi1, Motoya Tominaga1, Nobuhiro Ueno1, Yuhei Inaba1, Takahiro Ito1, Kentaro Moriichi1, Yutaka Kohgo1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used frequently to remove colon neoplasms. However, the predominance of these procedures has not yet been thoroughly explored.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and adverse events related to EMR with those related to ESD for colon neoplasms.
DESIGN: A meta-analysis of 8 studies published between 2005 and 2013.
SETTING: Multicenter review. PATIENTS: Patients from 8 studies yielding 2299 lesions.
INTERVENTIONS: EMR or ESD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: En bloc resection, curative resection, recurrence, and adverse events.
RESULTS: The pooled odds ratios (OR) (OR [95% confidence interval]) for the tumor size, length of the procedure, en bloc resection, curative resection, recurrence, additional surgery, delayed bleeding, and perforation by ESD versus EMR were 7.38 (6.42-8.34), 58.07 (36.27-79.88), 6.84 (3.30-14.18), 4.26 (3.77-6.57), 0.08 (0.04-0.17), 2.16 (1.16-4.03), 0.85 (0.45-1.60), and 4.96 (2.79-8.85), respectively. LIMITATIONS: This analysis included only nonrandomized studies.
CONCLUSION: The size of the tumor and rate of en bloc resection and curative resection were higher, and the rate of recurrence was lower in the ESD group versus the EMR group. However, in the ESD group, the procedure was longer, and the rate of additional surgery and perforation was higher, suggesting that the indications for ESD should therefore be rigorously determined in order to avoid such problems.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25592748     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  81 in total

1.  Practice parameters for early colon cancer management: Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colo-Rettale; SICCR) guidelines.

Authors:  F Bianco; A Arezzo; F Agresta; C Coco; R Faletti; Z Krivocapic; G Rotondano; G A Santoro; N Vettoretto; S De Franciscis; A Belli; G M Romano
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 3.781

Review 2.  Coagulation syndrome: Delayed perforation after colorectal endoscopic treatments.

Authors:  Kingo Hirasawa; Chiko Sato; Makomo Makazu; Hiroaki Kaneko; Ryosuke Kobayashi; Atsushi Kokawa; Shin Maeda
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-09-10

3.  Surgical margin-negative endoscopic mucosal resection with simple three-clipping technique: a randomized prospective study (with video).

Authors:  Hirohito Mori; Hideki Kobara; Noriko Nishiyama; Shintaro Fujihara; Nobuya Kobayashi; Maki Ayaki; Tsutomu Masaki
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-02-22       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Robotic excision of a colonic neoplasm with ICG as a tumor localizer and colonoscopic assistance.

Authors:  S Atallah; A Oldham; A Kondek; S Larach
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens in early colorectal cancer: lateral margins, macroscopic techniques, and possible pitfalls.

Authors:  Alicia Dessain; Christophe Snauwaert; Pamela Baldin; Pierre Deprez; Louis Libbrecht; Hubert Piessevaux; Anne Jouret-Mourin
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 6.  Selection of EMR and ESD for Laterally Spreading Lesions of the Colon.

Authors:  Ji Young Bang; Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-12

7.  Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using novel articulating devices: a comparative study in a live porcine model.

Authors:  Yasuharu Okamoto; Ryu Nakadate; Shotaro Nakamura; Jumpei Arata; Susumu Oguri; Tomohiko Moriyama; Motohiro Esaki; Tsutomu Iwasa; Kenoki Ohuchida; Tomohiko Akahoshi; Tetsuo Ikeda; Takanari Kitazono; Makoto Hashizume
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Complication and local recurrence rate after endoscopic resection of large high-risk colorectal adenomas of ≥3 cm in size.

Authors:  J Seidel; E Färber; R Baumbach; W Cordruwisch; U Böhmler; B Feyerabend; S Faiss
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 2.571

9.  Efficacy and safety of an internal magnet traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection: ex vivo study in a porcine model (with video).

Authors:  Akira Dobashi; Andrew C Storm; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Christopher J Gostout; Jodie L Deters; Charles A Miller; Mary A Knipschield; Elizabeth Rajan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 10.  Colonoscopic Perforations.

Authors:  Vinay Rai; Nitin Mishra
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-12-19
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.